ALBURO ALBURO AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES ALBURO ALBURO AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES

contact

MON-SAT 8:30AM-5:30PM

Are contracts of employment for a fixed period unlawful?

Photo from Unsplash | Wesley Tingey


The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.

Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.

 


AT A GLANCE:

Fixed term employment is not illegal per se or against public policy. (Claret School of Quezon City v. Madelyn Sinday, G.R. No. 226358, October 09, 2019)

 

Article 280 of the Labor Code does not proscribe or prohibit an employment contract with a fixed period provided the same is entered into by the parties, without any force, duress or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstance vitiating consent. (Julian Tungcul Tuppil, Jr., et al. v. LBP Services Corporation, G.R. No. 228407, June 10, 2020)


 

What is fixed-term employment?

 

A fixed-term employment has been recognized as a type of employment embodied in a contract specifying that the services of the employee shall be engaged only for a definite period, the termination of which occurs upon expiration of said period irrespective of the existence of just cause and regardless of the activity the employee is called upon to perform. (Allan Regala v. Manila Hotel Corporation, G.R. No. 204684, October 05, 2020)

 

 

What makes a fixed-term employment distinct from other employment contracts?

 

The fixed-term character of employment essentially refers to the period agreed upon between the employer and the employee. (Allan Regala v. Manila Hotel Corporation, Id.)

 

 

What is the decisive determinant in a fixed-term employment?

 

The decisive determinant in fixed-term employment should not be the activities that the employee is called upon to perform, but the day certain agreed upon by the parties for the commencement and termination of their employment relationship. (Allan Regala v. Manila Hotel Corporation, Id.)

 

 

Why is it necessary to indicate the date of termination of employment in a fixed-term contract?

 

Specification of the date of termination is significant because an employee’s employment shall cease upon termination date without need of notice. (Allan Regala v. Manila Hotel Corporation, Id.)

 

 

Are contracts of employment for a fixed period unlawful?

 

Fixed term employment is not illegal per se or against public policy. (Claret School of Quezon City v. Madelyn Sinday, G.R. No. 226358, October 09, 2019)

 

Article 295 (formerly Article 280) of the Labor Code does not proscribe or prohibit an employment contract with a fixed period provided the same is entered into by the parties, without any force, duress or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstance vitiating consent. (Julian Tungcul Tuppil, Jr., et al. v. LBP Services Corporation, G.R. No. 228407, June 10, 2020)

 

Article 295 of the Labor Code provides that:

 

ARTICLE 295 [280] Regular and Casual Employment. The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.

 

An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such activity exists.”

 

In the case of Emilio Caparoso and Joeve Quindipan v. Court of Appeals, et al., (G.R. No. 155505, February 15, 2007), the Supreme Court laid down the criteria under which fixed-term employment could not be said to be in circumvention of the law on security of tenure, to wit:

 

  1. The fixed period of employment was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties without any force, duress, or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent; or

 

  1. It satisfactorily appears that the employer and the employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance exercised by the former or the latter.

 

Simply put, jurisprudence says:

 

“A fixed-term employment is allowable under the Labor Code only if the term was voluntarily and knowingly entered into by the parties who must have dealt with each other on equal terms not one exercising moral dominance over the other.” (Arlene Samonte, et al. v. La Salle Greenhills, Inc., G.R. No. 199683, February 10, 2016)

 

A fixed term contract is an employment contract, the repeated renewals of which make for a regular employment. (Arlene Samonte, et al. v. La Salle Greenhills, Inc., Id.)

 

The foregoing notwithstanding, if from the circumstances it is apparent that periods have been imposed to preclude the acquisition of tenurial security by the employee, the fixed term contract should be disregarded for being contrary to public policy.

 

After all, the employment status of a person is defined and prescribed by law and not by what the parties say it should be. (Allan Regala v. Manila Hotel Corporation, G.R. No. 204684, October 05, 2020)

 

 

Related Article/s:

Indicators of Project Employment

 

 

Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding taxation and taxpayer’s remedies, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.

All rights reserved.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

0 Shares
Share
Tweet
Share